.JPG)
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsjMe0TWlPo&feature=youtu.be |
Part 2: http://www.verdensalt.dk/2015/03/follow-ups-on-niels-harrit-courtroom.html
Part 3: http://www.verdensalt.dk/2015/03/part-3-niels-harrit-courtroom-drama-in.html (censured by Google Plus)
It can be easily argued that this ruling did not conform to the court’s rulings in similar cases. In my case, the court ignored the complete absence of a factual basis for the libelous words the newspaper had published. All previous libel cases have been decided on the absence or the presence of proof. In this case, there was no proof.
Furthermore, libel must always be evaluated in context — the point here being that I had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the editorial comment. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable!
The hard copy of the judgment is a 10-page document that relates mostly to the legal aspects of the case. But, importantly, in this official document of the proceedings, the court acknowledges that:
To the best of my knowledge, all these are “firsts” in a courtroom in any country and “firsts” to go into the legal record in any country.
Along with the attention the case has spurred globally, these achievements have more than justified the efforts made in bringing this case to court.
I would never have been able to reach such a satisfactory result without the legal advice, coaching, and sparring I was able to afford through AE911Truth’s fundraising campaign, to which many wonderful people donated so generously. I was sentenced to pay the legal costs of my opponent, and even that can be covered by the funds collected.
To all who donated, please accept my sincere and heartfelt gratitude.
Yes, we lost a small battle. But we advanced the cause of 9/11 Truth in the process.
Truth will prevail.
Niels Harrit
April 1, 2015
source:
( ae911truth.org/) On March 27th, the Danish Eastern High Court affirmed the judgment from the City Court in the libel suit I brought against Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. In so doing, it acquitted Weekendavisen of the charge of libel.
It can be easily argued that this ruling did not conform to the court’s rulings in similar cases. In my case, the court ignored the complete absence of a factual basis for the libelous words the newspaper had published. All previous libel cases have been decided on the absence or the presence of proof. In this case, there was no proof.
Furthermore, libel must always be evaluated in context — the point here being that I had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the editorial comment. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable!
The hard copy of the judgment is a 10-page document that relates mostly to the legal aspects of the case. But, importantly, in this official document of the proceedings, the court acknowledges that:
- A video of World Trade Center Building 7 was shown as part of the evidence presented (three times, in fact, each time looping on the wall of the courtroom in front of the three judges);
- The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition was read in court;
- Architect Jan Utzon represented the 2,300 signatories of AE911Truth’s petition and testified that, based on historical experience, a steel-frame high-rise does not collapse due to fire;
- The scientific paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was submitted as evidence;
- With reference to said article, it was demonstrated in court, with the aid of a strong magnet, that a sample of WTC dust did contain iron microspheres — proof that thermite had been used in the demolition of the World Trade Center;
- The famous footnote 13 on page 82 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's NCSTAR1 report on the destruction of the Twin Towers was read in court twice — first in English, then translated into Danish. It is reprinted in the judgment. From this footnote, the three judges clearly understood that there is no official, technical account for the actual collapses of the Twin Towers.
- The 2013 and 2014 polls conducted by AE911Truth about WTC 7 were submitted as evidence.
- The judges understood that approximately half of all Americans and Canadians would say either they are sure or they suspect that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a controlled demolition when viewing the same video the judges had just seen; and
To the best of my knowledge, all these are “firsts” in a courtroom in any country and “firsts” to go into the legal record in any country.
Along with the attention the case has spurred globally, these achievements have more than justified the efforts made in bringing this case to court.
I would never have been able to reach such a satisfactory result without the legal advice, coaching, and sparring I was able to afford through AE911Truth’s fundraising campaign, to which many wonderful people donated so generously. I was sentenced to pay the legal costs of my opponent, and even that can be covered by the funds collected.
To all who donated, please accept my sincere and heartfelt gratitude.
Yes, we lost a small battle. But we advanced the cause of 9/11 Truth in the process.
Truth will prevail.
Niels Harrit
April 1, 2015
source: